Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course

Michael S. Mills

doi:10.30935/cedtech/6167

Michael S. Mills ¹ ^*

More Detail

CONT ED TECHNOLOGY, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp. 123-137

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

OPEN ACCESS 1803 Views 1519 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to add to the collective body of research regarding the use of digital books (or eTexts) and their preference by students in higher education. Although there have been many studies in this area, the findings are not necessarily consistent. One reason for this inconsistency is the rapid evolution of e-reading capabilities through recent advances in tablet computing. No empirical studies currently exist to describe the impact of multi-touch interactive eTexts, which are only accessible on these latest tablet computers. The purpose of this study was to determine how graduate pre-service teacher education students perceive the interactivity, engagement, and value of customized course eTexts. Participants in this quasi-experimental study rated the level of interactivity, engagement, and value of three eText formats: page fidelity (Adobe PDF), reflowable text (Kindle ePub), and multi-touch (Apple iBooks). Users of the multi-touch eText reported a significantly more interactive and engaging experience with their text than the other eText users. The experiment also revealed that students overwhelmingly prefer a free, customized open-access text for use in their course, no matter what eText format is used.

Keywords: e-book, Multi-touch, Digital textbook, eText, Tablet computers

References

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18-32. doi:10.1037/a0022086
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Annand, D. (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional material in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 152-164.
Armstrong, K., Nardini, B., McCracken, P., Lugg, R., & Johnson, K. G. (2009). When did (E)-books become serials? The Serials Librarian, 56(1-4), 129-138. doi:10.1080/03615260802679432
Ashcroft, L., & Watts, C. (2004). Change implications related to educational resources. Online Information Review, 28(4), 284-291.
Clark, D. T. (2009). Lending Kindle e-book readers: First results from the Texas A&M university project. Collection Building, 28(4), 146-149. doi:10.1108/01604950910999774
Clark, D. T., Goodwin, S. P., Samuelson, T., & Coker, C. (2008). A qualitative assessment of the Kindle e-book reader: Results from initial focus groups. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9(2), 118-129. doi:10.1108/14678040810906826
Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18-23. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Geri, N. (2007). Does the medium affect the message? The influence of text representation format on critical thinking. Human Systems Management, 26, 269-279.
Fenwick, J. B., Jr., Kurtz, B. L., Meznar, P., Phillips, R., & Weidner, A. (2013). Developing a highly interactive ebook for CS instruction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 135-140). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Garrod, P. (2003). Ebooks in UK libraries: Where are we now? Ariadne, 37, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/garrod
Gunter, B. (2005). Electronic books: A survey of users in the UK. Emerald Insight, 57(6): 513-522.
Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408. doi:10.1108/02640471211241663
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kang, Y., Wang, M., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49-52. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2008.12.002
Kimball, R., Ives, G., & Jackson, K. (2010). Comparative usage of science e-book and print collections at Texas A&M university libraries. Collection Management, 35(1), 15-28. doi:10.1080/01462670903386182
Knutson, R. & Fowler, G. A. (2009). Book smarts? E-texts receive mixed reviews from students. Wall Street Journal, July 16, D1. Retrieved on 16 February 2016 from http://www.wsj. com/articles/SB20001424052970203577304574277041750084938
Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1994). Multimedia and comprehension: A cognitive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 515–528. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097- 4571(199408)45:7<515::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-3.
Levine, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 612-625.
Li, L. -Y., Chen, G. -D., & Yang, S. -J. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 32-39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2012.07.010
Lindshield, B., & Adhihari, K. (2013). Online and campus college students like using an open educational resource instead of a traditional textbook. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 26-37. Retrieved from CrossRef.
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(4), 404-419. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00380.x
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371. doi:10.1007/ BF01463939.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Mbarika, V., Bagarukayo, E., Shipps, B. P., Hingorani, V., Stokes, S., Kourouma, M., & Sankar, C. S. (2010). A multi-experimental study on the use of multimedia instructional materials to teach technical subjects. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 11(2).
McFadden, C. (2012). Are textbooks dead? Making sense of the digital transition. Publishing Research Quarterly, 28(2), 93-99. doi:10.1007/s12109-012-9266-3
Miller, C., & Bosman, J. (2011, May 19). E-books outsell print books at Amazon. New York Times. Retrieved on 16 February 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/ 20amazon.html
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rainie, L., & Smith, A. (2013). 35% of those ages 16 and older own tablet computers & 24% own e- book readers. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Tablets-and- ereaders.aspx
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Richardson, J. V. R., & Mahmood, K. (2012). Ebook readers: User satisfaction and usability issues. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 170-185. doi:10.1108/07378831211213283
Rockinson- Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259-266. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., & Lunde, R. (2013). Electronic versus print textbooks: The influence of textbook format on university students’ self-regulated learning strategies, motivation, and text anxiety. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(3), 179-188. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.796230
Rogers, M. (2006). Ebooks struggling to find a niche. Library Journal, 131, 25–26.
Scholastic. (2013). Kids & family reading report. Scholastic.
Schugar, J., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A Nook or a book? Comparing college students' reading comprehension levels, critical reading, and study skills. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174-192.
Shaikh, D. (2004). Paper or pixels: What are people reading online? Usability News, 6. Retrieved on 16 February 2016 from http://usabilitynews.org/paper-or-pixels-what-are-people-reading- online/
Shelburne, W. A. (2009). E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and behaviors. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 33(2/3), 59-72.
Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Wurtz, P., Schmid, L., & Bergamin, P. (2012). The effects of touch screen technology on the usability of e-reading devices. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), 94-104.
Smith, M., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Building mobile learning capacity in higher education: E- books and iPads.
Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21, 33–50.
Stoop, J., Kreutzer, P., & Kircz, J. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: A study in changing habits, part 1. New Library World, 114(7), 284-300.
Taylor, K. (2011). Students learn equally well from digital as from paperbound texts. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 278-281. doi:10.1177/0098628311421330
Woody, W., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers and Education, 55(3) 945-948.
Wright, J. L. (2014). What enhanced e-books can do for scholarly authors. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 16 February 2016 from http://m.chronicle.com/article/What- Enhanced-E-Books-Can-Do/145969/?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly&utm_campaign =cd3c80ed4b-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb- cd3c80ed4b-304631961
Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2014). E-Reading rises as device ownership jumps. Retrieved on 16 February 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/16/e-reading-rises-as-device- ownership-jumps/

Citation

Mills, M. S. (2016). Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

Mills, M. S. (2016). Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(2), pp. 123-137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

Mills MS. Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2016;7(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

Mills, Michael S.. "Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course". Contemporary Educational Technology 2016 7 no. 2 (2016): 123-137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

Mills, Michael S. "Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course". Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, 2016, pp. 123-137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167

Mills MS. Student Preference of a Customized, Open-Access Multi-touch Digital Textbook in a Graduate Education Course. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2016;7(2):123-37. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6167